Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Parallels Desktop For Mac Vs. VMware

Posted by timothy on from the when-it-positively-has-to-run-windows dept.

neilticktin writes "MacTech performed an exhaustive set of benchmarks comparing Parallels Desktop 4 to VMWare Fusion 2 to run Windows on a Mac. To tackle this problem, MacTech undertook a huge benchmarking project starting in December — over 2500 tests by stopwatch. The goal was to see how the recent versions of VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop performed on different levels of Mac hardware, using XP, Vista, 64-bit, multi-procs, games, etc. ... As usual, results vary by what's important to you."

2 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This violates VMware's EULA by h4rr4r · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They do that because its performance is not that good compared to the other solutions. It is good, but no where near worth the money good.

  2. Re:Sun virtualbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Bwahahaha, right. You didn't actually try VMware did you?

    Try this:
    1. Install XP or Vista in VirtualBox
    then
    2. Install XP or Vista in VMware Workstation

    and you can use a stopwatch. Hell, you don't even need any timer, it will be quite obvious which one is faster.

    Plus VirtualBox has no 3D support, its USB support sucks (well, they all do but VB is really bad), it's missing all kinds of features, etc, etc.

    Here's an example of the poor programming in VirtualBox:

    Start something that uses virtualization hardware of your CPU (like a 64-bit VirtualBox machine), then try to start a 64-bit VMware machine. VMware will complain about the CPU features being in use. Now try the reverse situation. First start a 64-bit VMware machine then fire up VirtualBox... Boom! Your VMware machine will be killed and all sorts of bad stuff happens because VirtualBox doesn't even check if the CPU is available.